tomorrow. john: and so republicans vote to raise the minimum wage. >> alaska, arkansas, nebraska and south dakota all voting in favor of raising it. john: some americans say business hurts poor people. >> might be the problem to create poor people. john: famous actors tell the united nations fossil fuels will kill us. >> accelerated climate change is here right now. john: it is? some people believe all kinds of things. you believe in ghosts? >> yes, people have seen ghosts, i don't need proof for it. john: no proof? be reasonable.
that's our show tonight. and now, john stossel. john: we like to think that we are rational creatures, we're logical, we form our beliefs based on facts. >> you consider yourself a rational person? >> very rational. i don't know about him, i'm very rational. >> rational? yeah, absolutely. john: so many americans believe ridiculous things! >> do you believe in ghosts? >> yes. >> yes. >> people have seen ghosts. >> the house i grew up in los angeles had a ghost. >> since my mom died i believe she's around. i feel that she's around and my mother-in-law. i don't need proof for it. john: she doesn't need proof for it? pollsters say more than a third of americans believe in ghosts and almost as many believe in astrology. believe their futures can be predicted based on position stars were in when they were
born. >> you believe in astrology? >> absolutely. everything happens from the stars. >> i love astrology, i'm a big believer. >> deep into it. john: why? everything happens from the stars? it makes no sense. dozens of studies have debunked astrology. i'll explain how many aastrologers fool people in the show. ask the editor of skeptic magazine, michael shermer, wrote the believing brain, how we construct beliefs and reinforce them. our brains are faulty, michael? it leads us to believe in nonsense? >> i wouldn't say they're faulty. they believe in nonsense because we believe everything we hear or see or read about orrer told by others, and evolutionary reason for that. imagine you are ancient human on the planes of africa and you hear a rustel in the grass, is it a dangerous predator or just
the wind? if you assume it's just the wind, no harm done, you are skiddish or whatever. if you believe the rustel in the grass is just the wind and turns out it's a dangerous predator, you're lunch. you have been taken out of the gene pool by a predator. we're the descendants of those most likely to believe everything is real, just in case it is. our brains are like lawyers. marshalling the evidence to support the case, that is your belief. once you form the belief, astrology is real, i think everything happens for a reason, whatever it is. you find the evidence to fit it and ignore the evidence that doesn't fit it. john: so people believe in things like ghosts and global warming, but aliens? a harris poll says about a third of americans believe in ufos. >> you think there are aliens?
>> yes. >> aliens? yes, definitely. >> absolutely, yes. >> yes, i do. >> 100%. john: i mean what's that about? >> so what's going on here is that aliens are sort of like gods or deities or something bigger than us and we know from psychological research that people naturally think that everything happens for a reason, that the way things unfold in life are designed, that there's something out there that kind of tries to make sense of the whole universe makes sense, directs and controls things, so aliens are a version of that, that there's somebody out there that knows about us, and is watching us, that sort of thing. john: i just looked at the numbers, they are appalling, 42% ghosts, 36% ufos. astrology, witches, reincarnation. it makes me wonder why do people become democrats or republicans? is that not based on logic?
>> no. actually political parties are a kind of tribal belief. you gravitate toward the world view that feels best for you, and then you find the evidence to fit it. john: what your friends believe, what your parents believe. how does this explain us libertarians, because almost no one is a libertarian. i think i came to my beliefs because the liberal soup i'd been swimming in, liberal clan no longer made sense once you researched it, but aren't i logical to become a libertarian? it's just logic? >> libertarians are a tribe. we stand for a particular set of core beliefs involving the power of the individual, autonomy of the individual, freedom of the individual. we want to be left alone, but nevertheless, if you veer too far from the core set of ideologies like i did, i got a lot of angry letters from libertarians saying you're not a member of our tribe anymore. you've given up on freedom, you don't believe in the
constitution, you want to burn the constitution? no, there is the emotive sense like you violated our tribe and what we stand for. that's pure emotions, john, no logic at all. john: just to be clear, when you say believe in climate change. i believe in climate change too, climate changes, do you believe it's a catastrophe. >> theres are those who think the world is coming to an end, i don't think the evidence supports that. when you make the projections out a century or two. the air margins are too wide. john: cover that later in the show. thank you, michael shermer. i want to believe that people in business are rational because money's at stake. if you're hiring someone, you want to make sure the new employee is competent, but turns out that job recruiters are not rational about that. once in abc days i sent pairs of actors out to apply for the same job. exact same resume, told them to say roughly the same things,
and they did. there was only one difference between the two people. one was especially good looking. the other was not. before we sent them out, we had a makeup artist increase the difference. she touched up the lookers and others added blemishes and bags under their eyes and sent them out in matching outfits. both applied for the same secretarial job. without seeing the recruiter's face, you can hear the warmth as he talks to pretty dania. >> looking for somebody that we like to have a good time at the same time. john: to less attractive amy, the interviewer says roughly the same things but tone is less friendly. he tells her there's a lunch break. >> 45 minute lunch break. john: with good looking dania, the lunch break is flexible. >> 45 minutes but we are not strict around here. john: he told dania she was
likely to be hired. >> definitely in the lead right now. >> really? >> yeah, yeah. john: he later offered her the job, never even called amy back. and the pattern continued with employer after employer. we did the same tests with two male actors. same result. the good looking people did much better. we hear about people being racially bias. sexist. but look-sist. we have all kind of biasses that we don't think about, and he writes a blog called overcoming bias. do you buy this look-ist bias? >> absolutely, economist would be rational to be selfish in choosing the guy, the woman he likes better but probably thinks he's doing for the company. john: what's the point of your blog, overcoming, i assume we all try to overcome?
>> yeah, a lot of us seem to be blase about this. we're biased but kids are kids, but some of us go my god, i'm biased. i could be wrong about everything, how can i deal with that. some of us want to know how can we actually do better? john: are we wrong about a lot of things? >> awful lot of things. biased who we want to hire. who we like and think are better for jobs. john: now the picture on top of your blog, if you list this tied to the mass, why? >> we're seductive, we think we're prettier, moral, smarter, ulysses knew he couldn't count on himself not to believe what he said, he had to constrain himself. >> he ties himself to the mass and begs the other crew members. >> please, please, they had wax in the ears and couldn't hear. that's the thing we need to do to overcome bias, it's hard.
john: for students, they evaluate teachers in college. you found an interesting bias there? >> it's well known if the class at a nice time, easy class, you give out a's, you get better evaluations. universities could correct that, but they don't bother. >> you think it's because the person is a better teacher. >> feels like that. john: he gave me a good grade. >> the recruiter felt this was a better employee. it happened to be a prettier employee. that wasn't part of the evaluation. john: when a person says something, if they have high status, we are more likely to agree with them. >> you are at a party, there's a physicist and you agree with them, and a teacher, who do you listen to? the physicist because they're a big shot you.
>> found this in the case of movie reviews? >> a place like fox owns a lot of different outlets, some which review movies and movies made by fox. john: twenty-first century fox makes movies like avatar, irobot and also dr. dolittle 2. fox owns the "wall street journal," new york post and have reviewers. and you tell me they don't give better reviews to fox movies? >> yeah, they don't. john: why? you think they are worried about getting fired or demoted by bosses. >> readers care about reviews and there's a market discipline so you need to supply the customers with what they want if you are going to succeed. john: and i don't mean to single out fox, this applies to a bunch of other companies. i can just use the films. why aren't they biased? they work for fox, feel good about fox, why don't they work for them? >> they have incentives. john: prediction markets help
people do that. >> bet on it. so you probably been in a conversation, an argument where you get really pompous and you make all the big claims and somebody says let's bet on it and you feel it right then, you go, oh. wait a minute. what exactly were we betting on, how were we going to word that again? i meant something like this. you back off and clarify because you know you're on the hook. incentives change your mind. john: and prediction markets are groups of people doing that at predictive.com or betfair betting on future events and they are more accurate than pund snit. >> absolutely. if you want to find out the betting market, look at the odds. john: thank you, robert, and to join the discussion follow me on twitter at fbn stossel, or "like" my facebook page so can you post on my wall. i want to know what you think?
you never jim jam shabriver flab dry ris.o is, bliss pounds hazy dray? drywall sh-boop leaver - murray. hey, big bog panorama corn salabaty? dude, squibble bits. mareyayzee. mormal snap jebby rolban jebby deetle flosh. [laughter] eh. now's the time to get in the loop. just look for our fall tv picks with xfinity on demand. huh. quickly find the season's hottest shows, huh. quickly find the season's hottest shows, with a handpicked collection all in one place. only from xfinity.
. >> raise the wage! >> one of the simplest and fastest way to get folks ahead is by raising the minimum wage. john: raising the minimum sounds reasonable to most americans. recently people in conservative states like alaska, south dakota, nebraska, voted to raise the minimum wage. americans also support laws against price gouging and monopolies, but if you simply pay attention to free markets, you'd know that monopolies are not really a problem today. and that laws against price gouging deprive people of good things of what they need after disasters and that the minimum wage hurts poor people. economist garret jones says there are so many economic myths. so let's go over these three. minimum wage first. americans say help people. >> yeah, seems obvious to a lot of people that giving low income workers a raise is going to make them better off.
for the people who keep their jobs, that's definitely true. if you think about it. if even one person is losing their job and more than one person is losing their job, that means less stuff is getting made. our pie is getting smaller. the minimum wage has to be making us poorer overall. john: price gouging laws, you ask anybody should there be laws against price gouging. they say yes, gougeing. >> after a natural disaster people are sympathetic to the claim a few businesses have the flashlights and the lightbulbs and the batteries and the water. should they be allowed to charge more for the resources. john: no! >> the problem is after a crisis, that's just when you need more supply. that's when you need some guy with a pickup truck 100 miles away to throw a bunch of bottles of water into the truck and drive into the disaster area. price gouging laws keep people from doing that. one of the reasons the
governments provide disaster relief is because they're not letting the invisible hand do its job. john: now most schools say monopoly is a place where you have market failure. one company gets too big, they can raise prices as much as they want and rip us off. >> a great economist taught us when somebody sees a monopoly, other businesses want to steal it away from the one company every time there is one company with power, there are five or ten or many more that are hot on the heels trying to put the company out of business with competition. john: ibm and microsoft a monopoly. >> and the companies have shrunk and lost market share, the companies that used to be at the center of our lives. microsoft, they said they're going to runt internet. and i think the number of people using browsers, relatively small now. john: natural resources make a country rich. >> a lot of people take it for granted, natural resources make
a country rich. look around at the world's richest economies and started from poverty and boosted up into the middle and upper income brackets, like japan, a country with almost no natural resources, the biggest resource is the minds of our people. john: you have poor countries with lots of natural resources like nigeria. >> and countries with natural resources often end up in a land of civil war where people are fighting over the scarce form of wealth rather than building up the human mind. that's the real source of wealth. john: finally, another thing everyone knows is true, what really helps people, poor people is charity. >> what helps people more, charity or capitalism? >> charity. >> charity. >> my god. i'd say charity. >> charity. >> charity. john: people just assume that. >> but you know, if that were true, people would not be
getting richer in capitalist countries. it's the capitalist nations making people much more prosperous, and sharing a bigger pie is a great thing to do. you have to have a big pie in the first place. john: as we approach christmas, we think of ebenezer scrooge. you would argue he did more good for people not when he bought them food to eat at dinner but when he invested? >> when he's saving, he's keeping money in the bank, that's lent out to investors, to people who want to build homes, to people who want to borrow money to make it past a rainy day. john: the imitation of him was uncle scrooge from the comics, playing around in pile of money, but that's not what entrepreneurs do with their money. >> whether they're putting it in a bank or investing it themselves, they're helping to grow the pie for somebody else. the best thing he can do is leave it to the invisible hand to allocate wealth to whoever can do the most with it.
. john: 70 years ago when most of the world learned about the holocaust, people were shocked that so many german soldiers were willing to torture people. when adolf eichmann went on trial, he said i was just doing my job. one reporter at that trial called that the banality of evil. neuroscientist david eagle studies this phenomenon. you say reasonable people in a situation may become cruel. >> this sort of thing happens all the time where people will
turn on their unarmed and defenseless neighbors and murder them, and so this led scholars to figure out is there something wrong with millions of people's brains in terms of disposition or situational forces lead people to do these things. john: what they concluded is the power of the situation and other people was very powerful. one fun example of it is you see this card here with this line on it. how long is the line? which one of these three is it the same length as. tell us what happened, david? >> an experiment by solomon ash after the holocaust. he wanted to figure out how people are influenced in opinions by other people. the other people in the room with you were all shills, and say the answer the nonequivalent was the answer. most people will change the answer because of the social
context. john: one of the professors who did that study, one of his students went onto become a psychologist and run the most famous demonstration of how good people do not always heed the reasonable part of their brain. >> the teacher will read a list of word pairs like these, blue girl, nice day, fat neck and so forth. you have to remember each pair. 50 years ago, stanley millgram conducted this nasty experiment. >> if you get it correct, fine, if you make an error, you get an electric shock. john: he called the people giving the test teachers. >> try and remember the word pairs. >> incorrect. you will now get a shock of 75 volts. >> oh! >> the subject kept making mistakes. >> 150 volts. >> oh! >> sad face. that's all. get me out of here. i told you i had heart trouble,
my heart is bothering me now. john: the man did not have heart trouble and was not receiving the shocks. >> let me out! >> still most teachers kept giving the shocks. >> that is incorrect. this will be at 330. >> ow! >> most also resisted. >> i don't want to go further. john: even though the experimenter had no power over teachers, he wasn't boss or commanding officer. most still did what they were told. >> who's going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman? >> i'm responsible for anything that happens here. continue please. >> 420 volts. 435 volts. 450 volts. >> he might be dead in there! i mean some people can't take the shock, sir. >> please continue. >> i don't mean to be rude, look in on him. john: they told the test subjects the truth. >> god bless you, you had me shaking in here.
>> nice to see you. john: i understand that a group of psychologists was asked to predict how many people would give the maximum voltage and they thought less than 1%, and turned out to be half the people. about 65% of people went all the way up to the very top and gave the highest level of shock even though they thought the person on the other side might be dead or unconscious. both men and women. most of them went up to the very top. john: later, stanley made a documentary about the experiments, the video was part of that. i like the way millgram ended his documentary. >> even this study, an anonymous experimenter could successfully command adults to subdue a 50-year-old man and force on him painful electric shocks on protests. one can only wonder what government with vastly greater authority and prestige can command of its subject? john: yeah, i wonder, too.
government gets to use force. this experimenter couldn't do that. >> that's right. millgram was jewish, and after the holocaust, he, like the rest of the world was trying to figure out how these things happen? how you get lots of people to attack and kill their unarmed neighbors? and he found that if you put the subject closer by, then people are less likely go to the top. if you put the experimenter, the guy in the white lab coat farther away, people are also less likely to go to the top. john: i even wonder if the experiment can be done today because some of the experimenters were traumatized by giving the shocks and might not be allowed today? >> yeah, i think that's right. it's not taught as much as it was when it first came out. i think the most important thing is every generation learns this and understands this. so that when they're in the
situation with authority, they recognize the patterns in the experiment, like you set up simple rules, you give people titles like you're a or in other experiments you're a guard. things like that. there's a goal happening. you make the exit cost high. there's a diffusion of responsibility where you tell the person i'm responsible not you. all these things are necessary ingredients for a population to have blind obedience. john: frightening, thank you, david eagleman. >> this guy tries to reason with climate change protesters, but the protesters weren't reasonable. >> excuse me. excuse me. this is private property. this is private property. this is mine. name's louis, and i quit smoking with chantix. i had tried to do it in the past. i hadn't been successful. quitting smoking this time was different because i got a prescription for chantix. along with support, chantix (varenicline) is proven to help people quit smoking. the fact that it reduced the urge to smoke helped me
get that confidence that i could do it. some people had changes in behavior, thinking or mood, hostility, agitation, depressed mood and suicidal thoughts or actions while taking or after stopping chantix. some people had seizures while taking chantix. if you notice any of these, stop chantix and call your doctor right away. tell your doctor about any history of mental health problems, which could get worse while taking chantix or history of seizures. don' take chantix if you've had a serious allergic or skin reaction to it. if you develop these, stop chantix and see your doctor right away as some can be life-threatening. tell your doctor if you have a history of heart or blood vessel problems, or develop new or worse symptoms. get medical help right away if you have symptoms of a heart attack or stroke. decrease alcohol use while taking chantix. use caution when driving or operating machinery. common side effects include nausea, trouble sleeping and unusual dreams. i love myself as a non-smoker. ask your doctor if chantix is right for you.
fear? asking people in times square questions for the show, one question got the most yes answers. here it is. is global warming a big problem? >> yes, it is. >> it's a huge issue and we're killing ourselves. >> it scares me, should scare everybody. look how bad the storms gotten, fires get. john: look how bad the fires get, we're killing ourselves. there have been nasty storms lately. in this fall, a well-known expert said this at the united nations. >> accelerated climate change is here right now. droughts are intensifying, oceans are asidifying with plumes rising from the ocean floor, extreme weather events and the west antarctic and greenland ice sheets melting at unprecedented rates decades ahead of scientific projections. none of this is rhetoric and hysteria, it is fact. john: fact. extreme weather event, methane
plumes rising up. all scientists agree we got to cut back on the use of fossil fuels, but then i see this book, "the moral case for fossil fuels." how can fossil fuels be moral? alex epstein wrote the book, what are you talking about? >> you have the i love fossil fuel t-shirt. >> look at the magnitude of the risk and benefit. john: what's remarkable about your book is the dogma that earth is perfect without us and we don't mess it up, but, in fact, as we've made the world warmer, assuming we have. >> uh-huh. john: climate deaths are down? >> yeah, the idea of perfect exactly right. i started call together perfect planet premise. nature gave us a perfect planet and all we can do is mess it up. if you ask someone we have a perfect climate compared to now? they were terrified, it doesn't
give you water and temperature when you need it. we mastered climate. that's why so few people die from climate and dicaprio should learn this. john: deaths from climate are down? >> incredibly down. last year you hear record, record, record, and we decided most thaft is bogus or out of context. climate deaths were at a record low, under 30,000. compare that to 1931 where have you 3.7 million. upwards of that. with a population less than one third today. this is incredible achievement of fossil fuels. and we have the luxury of being able to absorb climate related damage to live in the cool places. >> in terms of deaths, before the 70s there may have been more deaths that we didn't know about? >> now, if we have a disaster, everyone knows about it. so it's just amazing -- >> before climate were in a drought in bangladesh or a
tornado, we didn't know. >> yeah, and think about today. what is the incentive to overreport deaths because you get money for overreporting deaths. john: and the population is higher, so should be much higher but it's lower because of man. >> and environment is not something to submit to, it's something to master. john: so the problem with the hype is that our lives are okay, but half the people on earth don't have the fuel they need. >> that means they have no machines to do work for them. that is a rough way to live. >> and this is the only thing that's affordable. people think they can get
. >> america's secretary of state seems convinced that climate change is a big problem. he says the science is absolutely certain. >> the science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3-d movie. it's warning us, it's compelling us to act, when 97% of all scientists agree on anything, we need to listen. >> what do you say to secretary of state kerry? >> he's equating climate impact with climate catastrophe, and
the string in the speech he gave to indonesia, he starts from climate impact and says they all agree with my policy. it ends with 97% agree with kerry's political policies. john: you're not a climate change skeptic, you're a climate catastrophe skeptic? >> i think i'm a climate catastrophe refuter at this point. john: thank you, alex. the thing that convinced me to be more reasonable? ? ♪ music
. john: i have to admit until 20 years ago, i wasn't so reasonable. i was a consumer reporter and fell for just about every hysteria that came up. hey, scientists say chemicals are giving people cancer. of course, government must regulate airline prices and get tough on illegal drugs. it was only after years of reporting gee, the activists were wrong about love candle, usually makes problems worse. and the drug war, i was confused, liberal beliefs were disproven by reality. i stopped reading the liberal media so devoutly and turned to conservative publications, i thought they want to police my
bedroom and the world. that doesn't seem reasonable to me. finally i discovered this little magazine called "reason." it was skeptical of both lef and right, and the more i read it, the more it made sense. these people understand life much better than i do. now these people were not matt welch and nick gillespie, the current editors of reason. you guys barely were out of diapers by then. if you are now. [ laughter ] >> how did you become reasonable so much more quickly than i did. >> for me, it was that my brother who's older than me went to college, found it in the college bookstore and started sending it home to me. john: it, meaning the magazine. >> the magazine. and like you, i was hearing a lot of stuff about how the right is always right or the left is always right, and none of that spoke to me and "reason" magazine which talks about free minds and free
markets, the founder hated hippies and hated cops who beat up hippies. john: he thought they were emotional and foolish. >> and destructive and hateful towards capitalism. >> and totalitarian in the way they try to censor free speech. it hit home to me after living in central europe for eight years in the late 90s. when i came back looking for the same politics that you saw there, people hated communism, they loved capital markets and free markets and thought there should be personal freedom to do what you wanted to sdpochlt i looked for anyone who had the sense of belief and it doesn't exist very much. "reason," a magazine about politics, but hated politics and tried to speak like humans speak is just immediately attracted to me in a way that the faux media is not. >> one of the things that attracted me to it is we're a
political magazine that hates magazine, it happens in businesses like uber, airbnb or the internet or weird groups that people form together whether they are religious communities or charities or things like that. so much more stuff that's interesting than what goes on in places like washington, d.c. >> you have the arrogant title "reason," implying everybody else isn't. >> the founder lanny freedlander thought we could dose the rational debate with editor's rationality. logic not legend, coherence, not contradictions. he believes this is a naive belief that we share that if you address this, if you are a nobody coming out of left field that you can change people's minds especially people you disagree with politics. >> one of the first big articles that got a lot of national press was love canal.
we had a reporter go there. john: let's back up, love canal is a place in upstate new york. >> and niagara falls, a neighborhood built on a toxic chemical dump, and it became in the late 70s a kind of indicator of all that was wrong with corporate america. corporate america was trying to make money by poisoning by selling them property on toxic dumps. john: and giving people cancer and this is why there was a cancer epidemic. >> a reporter went up and found out it was the school board of niagara falls that was the bad actor. they bought the property from the chemical company, whatever you do, don't let anybody build on this and sold it because they could make money on it, and the science was bogus that was used. john: on two fronts. no one caught a cold from anything at love canal had ever been proven, and no cancer epidemic in america. people think there is. >> let's at least get to the
set of facts we all can agree on rather than have the argument. saying facts don't matter, what really matters is my point of view. john: and everyone's point of view is that airline prices was something that had to be controlled by government. >> not just airline prices but the food they served on the flight. >> the civil aeronautics board. john: if there was a new route between new york and houston. >> the existing airlines had to approve someone else flying that. weirdly enough, they never did. accept it as the way things had to be. >> this was until a cover story that the existing regulation of airlines did not make sense and if you deregulated them, prices would go down, competition would flourish and they would be more safe. that was insane at the time but began a process which lo and behold with the help of a lot of liberals like ted kennedy
. john: a "gallup poll" says a third of americans believe in astrology. in times square, it seemed like most did. >> i love astrology. i'm a big believer, yeah. >> rational to believe in astrology? >> absolutely, absolutely. everything happens from the stars. >> yeah, i'm deep into it. john: why? by what logic would the position of stars and the moon at the time of your birth govern your personality. let alone predict what will happen to you? it's not reasonable. i once paid a famous astrologier to do a clart on this man, she created a 25 page horoscope based on his date and time. kemper is a serial murderer who murdered six hitchhikers, his grandparents and mother. we gathered their birth dates
before and said don't look at your neighbor's copy. this is personal, your 24 page horoscope. the students read the same 25 pages and said things like, wow! i didn't believe in astrology before, but this is amazing. no one could have known all these things about me. i'm a believer. why would they think kemper's horoscope was theirs? because aastrologers and psychics and palm readers are good at telling things people think apply just to them. maybe i can do it to you? after all, i can read your mind through the tv. i'll prove it to you. think of the name of a country that starts with the letter d. got one? now take the second letter of that country and think of an animal that starts with that letter. got it? i bet you're thinking of an elephant, right? i'm psychic.
i know what you think! or more reasonably if you ask people to think of a country that believes with d, the country most of us think of is denmark, second letter is e. most people think of elephant rather than eagle or electric eel. but maybe you thought i could read your mind. astrolgss tell people things that apply to most everyone. have you jupiter or your seventh house so people collaborate with you to help you. security is important to you. you have an above average sense of humor. well most americans think they have an above average sense of humor. when someone says lots of stuff like that, kemper's horoscope was 24 pages, remember, they're bound to hit on some things that make you say that's really about me. listen to this woman. she once did my horoscope. cost a lot of money, and said eclipses will have a dramatic
effect on people with certain zodiac signs. >> we have taurus and scorpio and leo and aquarius a bit more. we have the signs somewhere in our charts. john: you are feeling it if it's your sign, and if it isn't your sign. aastrologers flatter people. the three planets in pisces make you intuitive and have you skills that haven't been tapped. they give specifics. something they happen to your leg next month. you have a bunch of old magazines lying around the house. much of that won't are true, evolution has trained our brains to have confirmation bias. when there's lots of information, we focus on the things that are true. if you have old magazines around the house, you remember the hit. if you break your leg, the aastrologer predicted that, but you forget the missus --
misses, the dozens of misses, i wish people applied reason to all of their lives, not jus right? see you tomorrow. . kennedy: what a torturous week from the senate torture report, a glibber gruber and dubious "rolling stone" article on story out of uva. hard to figure out when people are repudiating, deflecting or lying faces off. the torture report is the most contentious, critics say let sleeping dogs lie, we don't torture anyone anymore, what is torture anyway? it is evolving like a mucous blob, if you are for torture, you are for terrorism. they will talk about their versions of justice, and we'll revisit one of the most talked about news stories that just disappeared. we